Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown

from the no-monkeys-this-time dept

Tue, Jul 19th 2011 11:08am — Mike Masnick

I guess if you're already trying to misuse trademark law, why not also experiment with misusing copyright law? Divorce & criminal law attorney Michael Pascazi was recently featured on these pages for his highly questionable attempt to trademark "Bitcoin," despite the word being in common usage around the world without any connection to Pascazi. Pascazi jumped into our comments with an extremely dubious explanation for his actions, which was quickly responded to by an actual IP attorney who told him he was wrong. Either way, we had a second post discussing Pascazi's reasoning, and why we believed his trademark theories were incorrect. Pascazi, once again, chose to engage in our comments, somewhat mockingly.

That all took place on July 7th & 8th. Apparently, over that weekend, Pascazi decided he wasn't happy with our reporting or how those discussions went, and decided that he was going to misuse copyright law to try to cause some trouble for us. He sent both us and our webhost a DMCA takedown notice demanding that we take down his "copyrighted works" that were posted on our site (despite the fact that the content he's claiming copyright over isn't actually hosted on our, or our web host's, servers -- a slight technical detail that would be obvious to most observers looking at the page). Actually, he goes a bit further than that, trying weakly to extend the DMCA and copyright law to act as a censor for content he apparently does not like:

I request that you immediately take down the offending works [and] issue a cancellation message for the specified postings...

And what are these "offending works?" Well, looking at the DMCA notice (full notice embedded below), he appears to be claiming that both the header and the footer from his law firm's legal correspondence, as well as the header of Magellan Capital Advisors LLC, are copyrights held by him. If you don't recall, Magellan Capital Advisors was supposedly Pascazi's "client," in the attempt to trademark Bitcoin, and a letter sent from Magellan with the header in question was available on the USPTO website as Pascazi's "evidence" for Magellan's use of "Bitcoin" in commerce. You can see this part of the DMCA notice identifying "the works" here:

Yes, Pascazi appears to be threatening us with a copyright infringement claim for posting two documents on corporate stationery of firms he apparently controls, in which he claims copyright over the headers and (with his law firm) footer of that stationery. I do wonder if the content presented is even copyrightable at all, and whether or not Pascazi has bothered to register them. Most of the header and footer appears to be made up entirely of factual information for which there is no copyright. I certainly don't see enough originality in the content or the presentation to establish a valid copyright. There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.

Even if, somehow, somewhere, Pascazi can get a legitimate copyright on the content in question, he still has no valid legal claim against us. Considering Mr. Pascazi's somewhat confused take on trademark law when it came to Bitcoin, I'm wondering if Mr. Pascazi is simply unfamiliar with the very basics of fair use within copyright law -- and the fact fair use must be taken into account before issuing a DMCA takedown notice.

Needless to say, we believe that we are not infringing the "works" in question in any way, shape or form (and even question whether or not there's a valid copyright at all here) and will not be taking them down, despite Mr. Pascazi's attempt to bully us with a blatant legal threat in the form of a DMCA takedown message. Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him, while reviewing the potential problems one might face when issuing a bogus DMCA takedown. Since we don't suffer bullying lightly, we also wanted to post this info publicly, so people are aware of what's going on.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, michael pascazi, trademark
Companies: magellan capital advisors, pascazi law

102 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Harrekki (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:13am

Come on, Pascazi.....
Dare ya to post something now :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:14am

Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him

If even half of this is true, and I don't doubt that it all is, he sounds like the kinda guy you couldn't convince the sky was blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ikarushka (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:15am

That's one of those shitty logos those who have no taste whatsoever put on their stationary. No surprise they can't secure serious clients. To my observation absence of taste in logos comes together with overall unprofessionalism of an "enterprise".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John William Nelson (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:16am

We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees
The DMCA has a remedy for folks who have to deal with false DMCA takedowns. It doesn't get used enough, I think. Damages plus attorney fees are nothing to sneeze at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:18am

Hmm. Sounds like somebody needs a good SLAPP in the face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:23am

18 USC § 512(f)
18 USC �512:

(f) Misrepresentations.� Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section�

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys� fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner�s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:24am

An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
FYI

I'm by no means commenting on the merits of Pascazi's claims or whether the logos themselves are actually copyrightable, but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:24am

Good on ya Mike for not backing down, and for posting this for everyone to see. When dealing with bullies, going public can be a great way to shut down their tactics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:28am

Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
yeah, but nobody's willing to sue for copyfraud, even though that's what this is.

proof again that people expect others to just magically buckle with the slightest of legal threads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
*threats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul L (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:30am

Oooh! He has a patent pending as well.

"System and Apparatus for the Transmission of Cell to Cell
Communications Utilizing the Internet"

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/n etahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=pascazi&OS=p ascazi&RS=pascazi

Is he looking to break in to patent trolling as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:31am

God it's nice to see a company that doesn't just back down when facing the threat of legal action. Mike is always posting about people settling because it is a lot easier than fighting. I'm glad that when he is faced with similar threats that he stands for what he believes in. Bravo!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A.R.M. (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:33am

TD's looking at this from the wrong perspective. It's now $1500 richer, right? This the statute awarded for false DMCA take-down notices.

Though, good luck trying to collect. Consider it a donation of education.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:33am

Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it appears the logo of the law firm comes from istockphoto: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9874330-lady-of-justice.php

Meaning it's unlikely that he holds the copyright interest here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:36am

"There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright"

Unfortunately, one is often wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am

Have you sent this to http://www.chillingeffects.org/ yet?? Also what is the other site of bogus DMCA takedowns?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am

Re:
Unfortunately, one is often wrong.

Again, I find it difficult to see how there's a copyright interest there, especially as at least one logo is from a stock photo site (and is still available for licensing), and I wouldn't be surprised to discover the other one is as well.

The point stands. I doubt there's any copyright here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:41am

Cyberbullying
I think this counts more as cyberbullying than the traditional type.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:42am

Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
The problem lies here:
Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section
This guy truly thinks he holds exclusive rights over the mere mention of anything he says or does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:42am

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
"buckle with the slightest of legal threads"

I had this image there for a moment, of a 300 lbs judge in a speedo. shiver ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:43am

Re:
Music to my ears :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:44am

Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
As I said, I was not offering an opinion on whether the logos are actually copyrighted or copyrightable.

I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:

There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.

Not trying to be snarky...just pointing out something that is somewhat of a popular misconception.

My favorite part about this guy is the fact that his law firm's website has page devoted to "World Time Clocks" lol -- http://www.pascazilaw.com/World_Time_Clocks.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:45am

Re: Re:
It didn't seem obvious to me which (or that any of) the images on the link you posted earlier were the same as the lady justice logo.

Anyway, he may or may not own a copyright in any of the material for one reason or another, but "trademark rather than copyright" certainly isn't that reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Wow. Remind me not to use istockphoto. Those are terrible.

I mean, "My niece has an artistic flair" terrible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Well, for what it's worth, Magellan doesn't have any valid trademarks associated with it, or for that matter, any copyright claim either as far as this search shows:

http://www.seravia.com/trademarks/world?r=1&q=o%3A%22magellan+capital+advisors+llc%22+ magellan+capital+advisors+llc

Here's more on the abandoned trademark (which has no ship in it):

http://www.trademarkia.com/magellan-capital-77155490.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul L (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:54am

Mr Pascazi's history is most interesting...

Michael Pascazi, a lawyer and entrepreneur from New York, has slapped telecom giant Verizon with a class-action lawsuit, seeking to claim a total of $US20 billion in damages for the firm's alleged violations of federal wiretapping laws. The lawsuit claims that the company collaborated with the US government to violate these laws by handing over personal phone data without obtaining search warrants.

Laywer + Entrepreneur = Class Action Lawsuit

So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6222.ars
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John William Nelson (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
You're right, but copyright protection works in different ways than trademark protection. Disney has a trademark on the word Disney. However, I can write the word Disney all I want and it won't violate trademark.

If I start trying to sell something using Disney to identify my business or product, then I run into problems. This is because trademark protects source identification, it doesn't protect expression.

I've written about the unique nature of trademark law as the consumer's IP law here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/07/the-consumers-ip-law-a-review-of-trademarks/

I've also written in-depth on the trademarking process in a TLDR post on the Bitcoin trademark issue here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/07/15/bitcoins-trademarks-and-a-roadmap-for-the-bitcoin-communit y/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John William Nelson (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Trademarks need not be registered to be valid. There are two types: registered and common law. (Plus a third, registration on the secondary register, but it operates like common law.)

But there are more reasons why Trademark is not an issue. See my comment on the difference between trademarks and copyright below (or above, if viewing non-threaded comments).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re:
It's a good thing Intellectual Property laws aren't confusing or else we would have a real mess on our hands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Harrekki (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am

Re:
Femtocell?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:01pm

Mike Masnick is clearly against America, and freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:02pm

Copyright?
This is the only thing I can find linked to Michael S. Pascazi:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Pascazi%2C%20Michael%20S alvatore%2C%201960-&PID=JAoeuKW3J7MNolEfDWxmIpAjnI5p&BROWSE=1&HC=1&SID=6

It's a market analyzer written in BASIC. From 1982.

I can't find anything else under Pascazi Law or Magellan Capital Advisors. Magellan brings up the phone book and Pascazi Law draws a qualified blank.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:03pm

The more he does, the more he makes a fool out of himself and shows how little he knows about the law. This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
This guy truly thinks he holds exclusive rights over the mere mention of anything he says or does.

so ignorance of the law is no excuse, but delusion is a valid defense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul L (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re:
There is a lot of prior art covering this that dates back far earlier than femtocell technology.

This filing actually reminds me of the same type of shenanigans that's going on with the Bitcoin trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim O (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:11pm

Re:
Yeah Mike! Show us how it's done!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceboy (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:12pm

If he puts as much energy into his law firm as he does his website, he's about 10 years behind the curve.

http://www.pascazilaw.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
The other part says "or by mistake", if he put out that claim and it is found to be in error he will be liable for damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:18pm

Re:
Agreed, lets get the digital pitchforks, animated gif torches, and lynch him digitally in the highest tree we can find in georgia on google street view ... :p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Father Once Said, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:19pm

When I was in 3rd grade and I was getting picked on my father told me, "If someone pushes you, you push them back just hard enough that they won't want to push you again." After that I never had a problem with bullies again.

Glad you had your lawyer "explain" the potential implications of issuing a false notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:20pm

Grammar nazi
Totally off-topic (I have nothing to contribute to this discussion), but "stationery" and "stationary" are two separate things. One is a noun, the other is an adjective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:22pm

Re:
Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with "PfmL" (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:25pm

Re: Grammar nazi
So, is "my stationary stationery" is correct?

'-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:26pm

Re:
OMG...that's about the worst representation I've seen in terms of a professional's website. I'd hazard a guess that it's yahoo's website builder...since it proudly displays "hosted by yahoo" at the bottom.

C'mon...my website is hosted by yahoo, but I sure as heck wouldn't used their web builder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Neither copyrights nor trademarks need to be registered to be valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
wow that site is just too much. The basic, i am still learning html style, frames. That fuzzy ass logo in the corner which looks like an out of focus picture from a 1 megapixel cell phone camera is great. Ugly ass background with too much contrast between the white center that bothers the eye. The picture of him with the american flag background is priceless. Do you think parcazi had his nephew design the site or was it like a 9th grade class project? I mean what kind of budget do you think he had for that site 3 dollars? He does seem to spend a pretty penny to get positive reviews posted on yahoo and the like.

I see the law firm has managed to submit 6 articles for publication in the last 5 years, so bravo on that.=
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Grammar nazi
No, "my stationery is stationary" would be correct (if you mean is my paper stable)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
Copyfraud actually is in the 506, the one showed here is the 512 were if abuse or error happens one can recoup damages(i.e. attorney fees and other expenses incurred).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:36pm

Re:
"This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer."

I think thats a good reason for him not to go back to his hole
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John D (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:37pm

Someone should sue him....
I can name at least ten nail salons that use that exact font!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Muir (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:40pm

Re: Grammar nazi
The easy way to remember this: paper has an 'er' in it and stationery is the paper while stationary is the adjective for unmoving. Thus, 'my stationary stationery' is a valid phrase for your unmoving paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
it could be "my stationary stationery never moves"

the stationary stationmaster keeps my stationery stationary at his station.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:44pm

Hmmm... IP lawyer vs Divorce lawyer... That should be as fun as Godzilla vs Mothra...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:45pm

Gets Popcorn
So Mike, you're going to be posting your lawyer's letter to him? This is like textual thunderdome, two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:49pm

Re: Grammar nazi
Totally off-topic (I have nothing to contribute to this discussion), but "stationery" and "stationary" are two separate things. One is a noun, the other is an adjective

Oops. Not so sure that's grammar, rather than spelling, but fair 'nuff. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:49pm

Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.

Generally speaking things that are snappy enough to be covered by trademark are regarded as too small for copyright - so, although technically things could be covered by both , in practice they are usually mutually exclusive - see for example this UK FAQ

Logos couldbe covered by both - but the logo here is a stock image.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:51pm

Re:
Most likely. I wonder how Microsoft would appreciate him trying to patent troll on their turf with their newly aquired skype, or any of the other app/smart phones that provide voip from your phone..... hmmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NotMyRealName (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Is it just me or is the cropping of
http://www.pascazilaw.com/sitebuilder/images/Courtroom_Photo-150x110.jpg
on the main page suspiciously close to the watermark on the original, stock, image?
http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78431481#Header

just thought I'd point out a little hypocrisy...
lets see how long it stays like that now:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
So he is either committing a crime by falsely reporting Tech Dirt or he doesn't understand the law he is trying to apply. Aren't either of these grounds for disbarment in New York state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re: We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees
Which makes Captn. Patent, wonder if he's also versed in the dark art of bankruptcy law? ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
It would appear that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
" was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification"

IANAL, but I dont think sect B really apply here since the content was never "removed or disabled". If mike wants a bigger payout he'd need to turn those posts off.

It actually sounds like if the content provider disabled the wrong article/video/content then the content provider is liable for damages against that copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re:
You inadvertantly make a huge point against copyright here. Even if the claims are completely groundless it still takes money to fight them. Or are you suggesting that the standard practice when faced with abuse is to just roll over and take it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Grammar nazi
You spelled it right, just chose the wrong word. I'd think that's grammar. But again, further off-topic. I still love all the articles you write ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
lexicon. not grammar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Incoherent One (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re:
*tips hat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re:
An Industry that is flourishing without the protections of copyright.

Wait....What?

Is this a precedent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:45pm

I am never more proud of being a Techdirt reader than when you personally stand up to legal bullies. Good on ya', Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re:
$sitebuilder version="2.6"

That's at the top of the source code.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
Stationary and stationery ARE essentially the same word. The use of stationery to denote paper products comes from the "London Company of Stationers" who sold paper (and later became printers and publishers) at fixed (stationary!) places in the vicinity of Old St Pauls Cathedral in the City of London.

They are also the people who we have to "thank" for copyright!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
That is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re:
Just another thing that is wrong with the current system. It can be incredibly expensive for the average person to defend themselves in court, so lawsuits can become a very powerful tool for lawyers or monied people/corporations to leverage against the average joe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
Were I in court with this idiot I would feel obliged to point out to the judge that this person passed the same bar examine he did - which would be considered an institutional requirement of knowledge. We don't let doctors say 'oops, I didn't know you need oxygen to live' so why should we let lawyers say 'oops, I thought I knew the law.'

"My bad" isn't a valid excuse for this kind of action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:44pm

Would be funny if...
This would be a lot funnier if he weren't wasting people's time and money with this crap in the middle of a financial crisis. I would be quite sad if he *ever* got another client. Caveat emptor, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:27pm

I feel sorry for Michael Pascazi.
I just looked at his website.

He must be blind or mentally impaired.

Poor Michael.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
...priceless...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:54pm

Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
> Were I in court with this idiot I would feel
> obliged to point out to the judge that this
> person passed the same bar examine he did -
> which would be considered an institutional
> requirement of knowledge.

The ABA Canon of Ethics requires attorneys to verify all legal claims by researching the relevant law before sending demand letters, filing claims, arguing cases, etc.

It's per se malpractice not to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mantoast (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:11pm

Re:
His patent attempt has been rejected three different times for obviousness. Rather than re-write the claim to get past the prior art, He (or his lawyer) argue that, and i quote, "no suggestion to combine the references." What made that even more amusing beyond the incompetence of that argument is that the prior art cited actually disclosed that something similar to the second piece of cited prior art may be used.
While I am not a lawyer, I have been involved in the patent process for several years now. His attempt to get his patent through is laughable and most likely futile. hmmm, just like his bitcoin gambit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Booshington Jones, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:17pm

Scroll all the way to the bottom ...
For this particular gem.

"Past performance is no guaranty of future success."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:23pm

A quick Google search shows other law firms that used the exact same template for their sites. My initial thought was that he used the Lady Justice logo from the template, but the istock photo is a closer match.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:29pm

Sorry, been awhile since I've used HTML tags. Here's the (hopefully working) Google link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dacoinminster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:31pm

Post official complaints
His website says "Attorney Pascazi is a member of: The American Bar Association, The New York State
Bar Association, and The Dutchess County Bar Association."

If you want to do something, try complaining to each of these organizations about his behavior:

http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Contact_Us
http://www.dutchesscountybar.o rg/contact

http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba/contact.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RickDC (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:35pm

iStockPhoto
I've just emailed iStockPhoto to ensure that Mr Pascazi has purchased the images in question - if you notice from the letterhead, the image has just been cutoff before the watermark.

My guess is, sorry, my opinion (before I get accused of libel!) is they were borrowed from istockphoto without their permission.

We'll have to wait and see!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:36pm

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Absolutely golden. Excellent catch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 6:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
one could spin that into insanity...
gets him off for the fraud ... and into a nuthouse, if i remember rightly.

not sure if it applies to this sort of thing, but it's an amusing thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 8:38pm

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
ROFLMAO
Asset Protection - Offshore Activities

Pascazi Law Offices has a Special Interest in Asset Protection, Offshore Banking,
Offshore Entity Formation, U.S. Reporting Compliance, and Defense of IRS, and U.S.
Department of Justice Criminal & Civil Investigations and Prosecutions.
+2 Scammer rating right there!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
OMFG +5 ROFls ...
I thought that looked like a SiteBuilder site design!

See: http://www.parallels.com/products/plesk/sitebuilder/
Demo here: http://sitebuilder.websitewelcome.com/Wizard
Or possibly: http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/index.php

He was too cheap to pay for site design & did it himself!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 8:55pm

Re: Re:
Yeppers... see my post above...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110719/00513815159/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-t hreatens-techdirt-with-bogus-dmca-takedown.shtml#c1173
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Even if he was cheap that is no excuse he could have used Joomla then(or something like it. i.e.: Silverstripe, Frog CMS, Drupal, XOOPS, TYPO 3, Wordpress and others) or any of the other hundreds of content managers available that have thousands of pre-made websites templates also available.

Although the price for a website today starts at $15 bucks.

I'm sure there are free ready made templates that would be better than what he got now LoL
http://community.joomla.org/showcase/sites/society/legal.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is why if justice is about justice and fairness, all expenses should be calculate as a percentage of ones income and not fixed at a price point, so if it is hard for the little people it will be hard for the people with lots of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
Those stationaery bastards!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:23pm

Re: iStockPhoto
Sure, because iStockPhoto must be the only possible source of that image.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re:
one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with

Which is as convincing as AC's weak attempts at trolling, LOL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:28pm

Re: Re: iStockPhoto
Even then, I'm guessing they have commercial licenses. And seeing as running a law firm is a commercial enterprise...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 5:35am

Re: Post official complaints
Why waste time complaining to the other crooks practicing law in NY? The best way to deal with attorney malfeasance is the Tony Soprano way. It always works. There is no appeals process. All outcomes are final. The cost is reasonable. The satisfaction is priceless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul L (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 6:17am

Re: I'm a Scammer
You forgot to mention that Jack Thompson was your hero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rpstrong (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am

Re: Re: Grammar nazi
If you lay it down, and it lies there, then the stationery is stationary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 9:22am

Re: Re:
Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with "PfmL" (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.

Your wishful musings are somewhat revealing about you.

Thoughtful logic and common sense are the enemies of spin doctors everywhere. Is that why Mike and the popularity of this site scare you so much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
"I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:

'There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.' "

The sentence you quoted doesn't actually say that things can't be covered by both trademark and copyright. It simply says that this particular thing might be covered by trademark, but probably not copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:22pm

After just reading these comments I would really like to know why he thought it would be a good idea to come at us, i mean really dude? A bunch of random people from the internet just took him down like 10 pegs. Got some serious butt hurt issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 3:24pm

False DMCA takedowns can carry not only civil penalties, but also criminal ones. The notices are sent under penalty of perjury.

http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sculptor, 10 Jun 2013 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
judging from the bad taste pert-tittied little justice goddess on his TM letterhead, it looks like he sculpted his own too, gawd! what awful art, his taste is worse than his knowledge of law....where did this guy go to school?
[ link to this | view in thread ]